The first RIAA jury trial has ended and the single mom accused of sharing 24 songs has been ordered to pay $222,000 by a jury of her peers.
“This is what can happen if you don’t settle,” RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse, according to Wired. “I think we have sent a message we are willing to go to trial.”
RIAA Jury Finds Minnesota Woman Liable for Piracy, Awards $222,000 [Wired Threat Level]
More From Consumerist
-
Coinstar Lets You Add Coins To Your PayPal Account, For A 10% Cut
-
How Foursquare Is Turning Your Check-Ins Into Ad Revenue
-
If You’re Going To Make Your Child An Accomplice To Shoplifting, Don’t Leave Her Behind
-
Ex McDonald’s Employee Sues Because She Doesn’t Want Her Paycheck On A Prepaid Debit Card
-
Mom Not Happy About Finding Nose Ring In Daughter’s McDonald’s Breakfast Burrito
File bankruptcy then countersue. If the RIAA sues you, you MUST countersue. They’ll back off.
Then I guess we’ll live in a world where we pay $9,000 per song on iTunes and can’t share it with our friends…? What? That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.
I paid money for it, I’m entitled the right to use it in any way I see fit, short of selling it or mass-distributing it. Besides, this kind of stuff should be promoted: there are countless songs that I heard (and liked) on Pandora that I subsequently BOUGHT on iTunes.
@cdan: Indeed. In a way, this ruling may have been better for consumers than a win. Although if it stands on appeal, Ms. Thomas may be in a world of hurt. I don’t know enough about bankruptcy law to know whether she would be able to discharge this judgment.
@stanfrombrooklyn:
OK maybe not a perfect analogy on my part, but compare the SERIOUSNESS of the crime. Does the punishment fit the crime in this case?
HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC
@ry81984:
She was *sharing* songs, not downloading songs.
IRSISTHEROOTOFALLEVIL AT 12:01 PM said:
“95% of the stuff they produce is absolute crap.”
This is true.
I’ve attended enough studio recording sessions to understand that the totality of what is to be selected for tracks is often a struggle to endure.
Except in very rare instances, how many consumers actually like every single song on every CD that they have to purchase? For the most part, popular musicians are publicly recognized for only a few “hits”.
Under the guise of artistic expression, the rest of their material often amounts to nothing more than fluff to fill out an album/CD for sale.
When you purchase a CD, you have to pay for the fluff to get at the one or two tracks that you may like.
@yg17:
The point was punitive damages. Keep in mind she was also distributing.
She broke the law, got caught, refused to settle without taking the chance of this or a much larger penalty at trial and tried to lie her way out in court–counting on the fact that a “jury of her peers” would take sympathy on the poor single mom vs. the big, bad record company and ignore the law. Oops. If the 220K is too much, well, she should have thought of that before she decided to jeopardize her family’s welfare over something this stupid. You don’t have to like the RIAA and how they do what they do, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to sack up and take responsibility for your actions. I think diamonds are over-priced, controlled by a cartel, and rarely benefit those who labor to dig them out of the ground. Anyone think that gives us the right to smash in the window at tiffany’s?
@Stan LS: They never proved she distributed a single song.
Consumerist,
I love you guys—I really, really do. But stop the ‘single mom’ crap. Yea, the RIAA is pretty repulsive but she is in the wrong. I’m not sure what sort of ridiculously self-entitled world we live in. Just pay for fucking music and everything will be fine. People throw down 5 bucks for a disgusting cup of Starbucks crap but won’t penny up 99 cents for a great song?
I just wanted to point out:
She was found LIABLE not GUILTY. This was a civil tort suite, not a criminal trial.
I’m by no means a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the rules are not entirely the same as a criminal trial. I do not believe the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” thing applies.
Regardless, I agree that the amount rewarded to the RIAA is grossly excessive.
@zaky:
But its a poor single mom!!!
Those bastards!!!!
@Sam Glover:
Ah, you’re right. In any case, she’s lucky they didn’t charge her with all the 1702 songs.
My question is, what would’ve the punishment been if she had just shoplifted (24 songs/8 songs an album) 3 CDs?
I heard on the news that she was sharing 1700 songs. Maybe they only put her on trial for the ones they could prove?
Everyone does have the option to just start buying used CD’s, copy the files on to your PC, and then sell the CD again on ebay. You then own DRM free files, well below what you’d pay on iTunes. Of course, this is until the RIAA sues the ebay and the entire internet for piracy.
the fact that almost everyone i knew in college was using kazaa to download stuff just makes this all the more rediculous. everyone did it, and a couple did get busted.
but in my twisted logic, shouldn’t it be the file sharing website be the one getting sued? i think they did sue or did something to kazaa a few years ago, so why is this still coming up?
@jmackowi:
Sony BMG’s chief anti-piracy lawyer: “Copying” music you own is “stealing”
source: [arstechnica.com]
@protest:
Twisted logic indeed. That’s like suing a car maker for facilitating the driving part of drinking and driving
Jury was made of of everyone that could NOT get our of jury duty. Did they not understand that RIAA is the new name of Satan?
This was a slam dunk case, and th RIAA knew it. Defending her makes the RIAA look good. And the person asking for the emails of the jury is walking the fine side of the law on that one. Besides the fact the Journey was one of the groups would have made me find her guilty for much more by continuing to inflict noise pollution on the world.
about a sentence:
Long live bit-torrent, VPN(PPTP), and relakks.de
this makes me want to go out and download something. problem is,
there’s nothing out there worth downloading in this age of crappy music.
@Sam Glover: do you think it’s possible that the judge’s decision not to require the plantiff to prove damages could in effect sabotage their case on appeal?
one would certainly hope. his decision says to me that simply the existence of music files (owned or not) & a file sharing program capable of distributing them on the same computer could land anyone in this same situation.
this is why my media is stored on a separate machine behind a 2nd firewall.
@protest: I’m believe Kazaa is currently being sued into oblivion.
I want to know WHAT THE HELL THESE SONGS ARE that they are worth
that much. Seriously…I wanna know the song titles cos this is some
more bullshit.
Well, there goes her childrens’ college educations. And her retirement. And the car. And the house…
Really, RIAA. 24 songs? The most she should have been fined was $24, $500 if you want to be an ass about it and charge ridiculous fees. But over $200,000???
How the hell do these people sleep at night?
@mac-phisto: If Judge Davis, who I generally think is a consumer-friendly judge, doesn’t reverse his jury instruction himself or pursuant to a post-trial motion, then yes, I think there is a good chance of getting a reversal on appeal.
I think you are right about the potential significance, but I am not sure that judges and juries have a good enough understanding of technology to see it.
@DarklingLena: read my post above, I listed them
@zaky: You honestly think copyright violation is a crime worthy of bankrupting the accused?
(She is a single mom, it’s not like the headline is misleading/incorrect/confusing.)
i hate the RIAA
@MonkeyMonk: who knows, maybe the mafia actually has its fingers in the RIAA! $222,000… ouch, that has got to hurt. Seems ridiculous and very harsh for ‘allegedly’ sharing only 24 songs.
@supra606: Not beyond a reasonable doubt…the standard is by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial.
@ry81984: Someone else did it? From her PC in her home using the program she downloaded, her responsibility.
@MightyPen: Exactly.
@BrianH: Preach on brother.
@supra606: Civil case, you are liable. Reasonable doubt not relevant.
Hey I have an idea…quit stealing stuff. I would not be hesitant to pass on liability to the file sharing service because they do have purposes outside of stealing though many of you fail to see this (they are used when multiple groups are involved in the same study and need to readily share their data quickly for quick peer review and feedback).
Seriously, why do you feel downloading something you do not have a right to is not stealing and then sharing it is not trafficing in stolen goods? Yes, the judgment seems high but I everyone knows the risks of this activity. Single mom…wah…cry me a freaking river. Again, it probably would have been better if she had not distributed copyrighted material.
@Rectilinear Propagation: If this was a married rich guy, do you really think the headline would have read “Married Wealthy Man Fined $220k..” No because this would not have the dramatic effect of this title.
@nursethalia:
How the hell do these people sleep at night?
Horlicks.
@notme93: She wasn’t sued for stealing songs, she was sued for distributing them. So, to make your question relevant, ask what the penalty is for someone who sells (or even gives away) pirated CDs out of her house.
Still, copyright law in this country sucks balls. It’s more about the money than the art.
@seanmcleary:
“Still, copyright law in this country sucks balls. It’s more about the money than the art.”
Uh, you don’t work for free, right?
@Rectilinear Propagation:
It’s stealing and assisting other people in stealing. Stealing is stealing. Because a song is not a physical good doesn’t exempt it from stealing. I’m with Javert on this one.
The contrast between the result of this case and class action lawsuits against corporations is very indicative of which side the court system seems to favor.
Individuals are bankrupted by judgments. Companies settle for terms that require them to give away or discount products they’ve already spent money on.
Maybe the woman could issue a coupon for $5 off her homemade baked goods for each of the recording companies she supposedly stole from instead of having to pay the judgment amount. That would seem to match the way that companies get out of harsh lawsuit judgments…
@Javert: Quit stealing stuff? You mean like quit making copies of cds you already purchased for your own personal use under the concept of fair use – that Jennifer Pariser, lawyer for Sony BMG, recently stated was stealing? If people were judged by the RIAA’s definition of stealing, everyone in America who has ever recorded a song off the radio to a tape is a thief. We should all turn ourselves in and fill up the prisons with millions of petty crooks.
I hate the RIAA. Always have. Vowed never to buy a CD back in 1999/2000 during the whole Metallica-Napster stuff.
@Frequent Flyer:
Yea, man. How dare people demand to get paid for their work! Unbelievable! You work for free, right?
So how many of you are up for a year long ban on music purchases?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, until we as consumers are willing to band together and collectively tell RIAA to kiss our rumps, they will keep on doing exactly this.
We need to get organized, get enough people mad enough, and have someone draft a petition to RIAA and the major labels that tells them we will no longer buy ANY music until they stop with the lawsuits.
That wont happen and you know it.
Which is sad.
We have the power to shut down RIAA and send a major message to the record companies and most folks aren’t willing to do it because they just can’t wait for the next crappy album from their favorite crappy band…
Well, I guess my boycott isn’t ending anytime soon.
@Stan LS: Apparently the artists work for free because the RIAA rips them off just as it rips the consumers off. If the artists were in control rather than the business suits, you could make more of an argument for getting paid for “their work.” As for “their work” in reference to the RIAA, all it seems to produce are lawsuits.
@mechanismatic:
But that’s between the artists and the RIAA, isn’t it?
The only music I have purchased in the past three years was purchased directly from musicians who made their own CDs. This trend will continue until RIAA dies in it’s own spew, and DRM chokes the life out of whatever companies insist on continuing to make it impossible for consumers to enjoy the content they purchased without having to tote around a stack of CDs (an albatross around the neck). Vote with your $…it’s the only thing they understand.
what if she doesn’t pay up, is she going to jail?
@Stan LS: So you’re saying we shouldn’t boycott companies that use sweatshop labor either? That’s just between Kathy Lee Gifford and the low-wage laborers she exploited.